them. there is nothing worse than having different expectations based on culture, race, and ethnicity. that will not be helpful to our nation. it will not be helpful in the future. host: we have a 12 thank you so much for coming in and talking with us from new york city. >> my pleasure. thank you for having me. >> we have been looking at this new report. we now go to the floor of the house of representatives. it is a prof forma session

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. october 2, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable rob woodall to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you once again that we

your creatures can come before you and ask guidance for the men and women of this assembly. send your spirit of peace, honesty, and fairness during these weeks of political campaign. may their ears and hearts be opened to listen to the hopes and needs of those whom they represent and whom they seek to represent. bless the people of this great nation with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding that they might responsibly participate in our american democratcy. -- democratcy. please keep all who work for the people's house in good health that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given them to the service to the work of the capitol. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done here be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-a house resolution 788, the journal of

the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance this morning will be led by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore lewis on friday, september 28, 2012. the clerk: senate 3625, a bill to exchange -- a bill to change the effective date for the internet publication of certain information to prevent harm to the national security or endangering the military officers and civilian employees to whom the publication requirement applies, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3 - b of

house resolution 788, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, october 5, 2012. all that live coverage here in c-span. >> the conversation i had with jody plummer, what i said was five years ago when you're in the position to buy your

business, you needed a tax cut then. i want to make sure the plumber, said the nurse, the firefighter, it the teacher, the young entrepreneur who does not have money, i want to give them a tax break now. not only did 98% of small businesses like less than to under $50,000. i also want to give them additional tax breaks because they are the drivers of the economy. >> we need to spread the wealth around. in other words, we're going to take joseph money, give it to signature obama and let him spread the wealth around. the whole premise behind the plans are class warfare, but spread the wealth around.

i want small businesses that would receive an increase in their taxes. why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now? these people are going to create jobs unless you take that money for him and spread the wealth around. i am not going to do that. >> number one, i want to cut taxes for 90 5% of americans. it is sure my friend and supporter warren buffett could afford to pay a low tax. in order to give taxes. then exxon mobil which made record profits over the last

several quarters, it they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there tried to figure out how they're going to save for their kids' college educations, and they need a break. look. nobody likes taxes. i would for for that no one pays them including myself. we have to pay the core investments. >> the fact is businesses in america are paying the second highest tax rate of anywhere in the world. our tax rate is 30 5% pish. ireland is 37%. where are companies going to go? we need to cut the business tax rate in america. of all times in america, we need to cut people's taxes.

we need to create jobs, and not spread the wealth around. debate is the first of three at the university of the dinner, focusing at domestic policy. the debate begins at 9:00 with live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. the next week a town hall format. all of this live on c-span. we are also bringing you live coverage of congressional debate tonight. tonight the texas senate debate with ted and cruz. then journalists and scholars will be talking about the upcoming debates. it is called a citizen's guide

that helps the watch and understand the three presidential debates this month. that is coming up this evening at 9:00 p.m. eastern. of the channels, at those kinds of things. if i know a bill is coming up on the house, i watch which channel i want to see. i have them all. if there is a speech i know you have covered or a book review or so on, i am going to watch that. when i want to find out something that has some value to it, that will be one of the first places i look. i am a public broadcasting fan. i watched those channels. of a couple hundred channels, i probably have 5-10 that i will go to. it will include all the c-span channels.

>> he watches c-span on direct tv. c-span, traded by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television providers. >> scott brown and elizabeth warren faced each other for the second of four televised debates in massachusetts. david gregory moderate this. >> moderator of meet the press and welcome to the cter of massachusetts co-sponsored by the university and the boston herald. i am joined by the two candidates, miss elizabeth warren and a senator scott brown. welcome to both of you. a thank you for being here. just a note about the rules, basically there are none.

no set time limits. what i hope is a healthy discussion of the important issues facing this country and in this race. i can't been -- i champion the to a few -- the two of you. i would like to begin where it seems this campaign has been, in the area of the personal. some personal friction and issues between the two of you. ms. warren, i want to start with questions about your native american heritage. there seems to be a lot of questions about this. i want to see if we can clear these things up. you have listed yourself as a minority in a faculty directory in 1986. you continue to miss -- to list yourself in that directory until 1995. do you consider such a minority? and if not, is there any other

reason for some kind of benefit that you list yourself in such a directory? >> i have answered this question many, many times. it starts the fact from the dow was born until the day my mother died, if she told me -- it starts at the fact of from the day i was born until the dimon mother died, she told me who we are and my family. i have never used the information about our native american heritage to get any advantage. not to apply to college, not to apply to law school, and not to get hired for any job. i was -- i listed myself as native american. i was listed there. it is part of why am. >> you consider yourself a minority? >> i consider myself as having a native american background. >> senator brown, you have a web site created by your campaign that says we are getting to know the real as a bit of warren. if it allows people to check whether she is a hypocrite or a

fake indian. who is the real elizabeth warren? is she a liar? is that your judgment? >> you'd have to ask her who she actually is. i think we need to reflect back and talk about this campaign is really about, which is obviously the jobs in the economy. part of this race is also integrity and character. if you look back and see what we are talking about here, no one is questioning what her parents told her when she was younger or through that timeframe. when she was asked by "the boston herald" why she was being towed to as a native american, she said she did not know. and then after misleading the papers, she said that she self- reported. she never answered why she said that. she has also said that as time

goes on, i cannot change of who i am. that is the nature of her commercials. but as with noticed -- as we noticed throughout life, she was white. then she changed her nationality to native american. as she was being considered for recruitment as a result of that director, she was being recruited to ivy league schools. at the pinnacle for success when she became tenured at harvard, she was changed back to being white. when she says she cannot change who she is, she did it twice. >> if you have any evidence, at all, senator, if to suggest that ms. warren benefited or was hired because she was a native american minority? >> the real issue is what is she telling the people. >> that was a direct question. if you suggested that she is being dishonest. i want to know if -- >> the best way to answer that is for her to release her personnel records. i released 32 years of my military records. i think the fact that she has

not least those records of speaks volumes. >> are you hiding something? >> no, i am not. the questions about character, i answer the questions about how i was born and what i learned growing up. i never use it for college, law school, or to get a job. others have backed me up. the boston globe interviewed two dozen people on this. they said in print that he voted for scott brown. it would not know about it until years later. i want to say something about character, since that is the issue. i think character is how you live your life. and the daughter of a janitor who ended up as a professor at harvard law school and working for the president of united states, i am proud of the two children i have raised and the husband i have had for 32 years and by three grandchildren. i have taught school. i have taught a generation of students. hello, occasionally, inspired a few of them. i have -- but i hope,

occasionally, inspired a few of them. >> have you model this issue in the campaign? >> i wish i had been faster in answering the question. but the truth is the truth. i believe my mother. i cannot imagine what kind of test of character would be to say that my mother lied to me from the day i was born until the day she died. >> senator, is this disqualifying? >> no, of course not. there is no question she is a qualified academic and a good teacher. >> do you doubt in any way her credentials as a scholar that would have led her to be hired? >> no. but i do question the fact that

she misled the voters off for over five weeks, saying that she had no idea how harvard came to know that she was a native american. she, in fact, self-reported. no one is questioning what our parents tell us as we are growing up. as you grow older, you have an affirmative obligation when you are making a disclosure, such as that, when you're taking something that is really meant for somebody who has been truly disadvantaged by years of discrimination, i think it is something you really need to double check on. >> on this point that senator brown is now raising, it is wrong. i misheard a question at a very noisy press conference. i came back and answer it when i understood it. and that is it. to try to turn this into something bigger is just wrong. >> let me ask you, senator brown, because a question of your own credibility has been raised. you talked about having secret meetings with kings and queens and crime ministers. your campaign said he misspoke,

but this is something you said on multiple occasions. are you guilty of exaggeration here? >> no. i was trying to make a point that we're talking about the economic issues in other countries, and you have met a lot of the same people i have met. they talk about jobs and the economy and the fact that the number one thing we need to focus on is jobs in the economy. i never met the poorest performer, either. it is about presenting -- the poorest farmer, either. let me talk about mistakes. i have made mistakes. before i got elected, i said my daughters are available on national tv. that was a pretty big mistake. i am still paying for that one. the difference between i make a mistake, i corrected.

i immediately corrected. professor warren, when she made a mistake and misled the voters of massachusetts, it is not that she did not hear the question. this went on for five weeks of the media asking her specifically how they came to know that she was a native american. >> he always ask you professor warren. you think he is trying to cast you as an elitist professor in the eyes of the voters? does that bother you? >> it does not bother me. i worked very hard for this and it does not bother me. >> the boston globe reported she is proud of being a professor. whenever i see my professors from school, i say hello professor so-and-so. she has earned the title. she is a sitting professor. >> you have both earned work as attorneys. you have talked about clients who have represented. you have released a list of those clients that have come on. senator brn, to my knowledge, you did not. >> i resisted about a week ago.

in a real estate attorney representing small banks. >> as far as i'm aware, in terms of the lawyers that i know, and i know quite a few, legal work entails becoming an advocate for clients, not necessarily an advocate for a particular policy position. is there a reason you should doubt the other base and declines you represented? >> let's start with that disclosure part spirit i have not seen a list of senator brown's clients. all i know is that senator brown said at a conference last week that somehow over the last 25 years will he has been out there working in the public interest and representing people here in massachusetts that he also is representing banks and mortgage companies. but i have not seen a list of those clients and i did not realize it had been made public. is that right? there's a public list of all the clients that sender brown

had and the work he did? >> professor, with all due respect, the only person is required to provide a list is you when you got to provided on a yearly basis to harvard. when asked there is a list, you said, no, there is no list. she is apparently released it tonight. i made it very clear last week. if people know that i'm a real estate attorney. there is an office in my home. i represent a few small banks. i want to talk about clients. it is important. you ask if it is important. it is. the routine that professor warren has been saying throughout this campaign, she is out there representing the little guy. she is out there representing the workers. there is a company that she represented in an effort to deny union workers there benefits. she got paid a five figure salary.

she was on the side when no one was watching. she chose to side with the steel conglomerate. she got it almost one-quarter of a million dollars to represent a large insurance company, one of the largest in our country. she will say she was setting up a trust. there is no way a travelers insurance is going to set up a trust and work for the victims when, in fact, they are paying her as a hired gun. >> have you released what exactly you did for those clients? >> i already said it publicly. i do not know how much more public i have to get. in the real estate attorney. i do closing. i so work with the army. >> here is my follow-up question. do you believe that, as an advocate, as an attorney, she was actually adopting the positions as she took four or was she making an argument on behalf of a klein, just as you

would do as an attorney. there is a distinction. >> that is a great question. when the lights are not on and the media is not looking, you have a choice. she had the choice to take this client. she got paid almost one quarter of a million. >> you're not suggesting lawyers agree with every client they take on. is that fair? >> in this particular instance -- >> it is a pointed question. >> i think attorneys have a choice. they can deny them. >> ms. warren, your response, please. >> how to start with what senator brown is trying to do here. he just keeps making charges. he just keeps making charges. let's start with the question about the cases that he says i have represented. i am a teacher. i have been out there as a consumer advocate. i've been writing books.

i have been working in a field. from time to time have taken on a client. i have done it because there was an important legal issue at stake. for me, it was about protecting individuals. was about protecting employees. it was about protecting homeowners. it was about making sure people did not get run over by banks and the system really continue to work for them. that is what i did. i have done it through -- i did it with senator kennedy for 15 years. i wrote the books and i even went to the united states supreme court. for senator brown to say that my work hurts asbestos victims is just simply not only not true, it is in exactly the wrong direction. i have been working for asbestos victims of for years.

including going to the nine state supreme court to try to protect a half a billion dollar judgment for them and to try to make sure there is a system set up so that people who have asbestos-related diseases, which continue to show up year after year gets in someone's body, they do not know for sure whether they have it or not, until sometimes years later -- a way for those people to be compensated. the asbestos victims have stood up and said, senator brown is wrong. and he has crossed a line. these are the people whose fathers have died, whose uncle is have died, whose cousins have died, and the day are the ones who are being attacked by senator brown now. >> as a consumer activist, was it a mistake to take on these corporate clients? >> absolutely not. i would do it again because what i was out there doing was trying to help protect the asbestos victims. the asbestos workers and know that.

the lawyers for the asbestos victims have described senator brown's charges as deliberately dishonest. even the boston globe has described of them as misleading. i was out there working for asbestos victims. if i had the chance, i would do it again. >> with all to respect, a travelers insurance co. is not going to pay a quarter of a million dollars to be a hired gun to work for the victims. that is a laughable. >> can we stay on the question? this was an insurance company obverses an insurance company. two insurance companies were fighting. if one of them won, then the asbestos victims would have a chance to get another half billion dollars in payments and there would be a device to pay them overtime.

>> once again, with all due respect, the victims of the asbestos cases, 1/40 of what she got paid. it is laughable to think that she was working for the victims to set up a trust. a lot of them have not been paid to this debate. let's assume that she is correct on the asbestos matter. the other one is a whole different situation. in a union member. there's only one person in this race that has been fighting for union issues and that is made. if she had an opportunity to side with the little guy. and actually worked. once again come when the lights were not a shining and people were not watching, she made a choice to side with the conglomerate and got paid a five at the figure salary to deny the health care benefits. >> a final point on this. >> senator brown, once again, is making things up. the reality is that in the case of the poll company that he is talking about here and a black long, that everyone was going to get paid.

it was a question of protecting a particular legal principle, but everyone was going to get paid. let's be clear. senator brown is the one who is not working with the unions. the unions have endorsed me. the asbestos workers said i was on their side, not as senator brown. the coal workers said i was on their side, not senator brown. he cannot change the fact. >> 1 follow. when she was advocating for that, if that legislation -- that ever did not prevail. had she prevailed, they would have unraveled the benefits. >> making up things up again. >> i want to talk about national politics here. i can tell you, living in washington and traveling around the country, i think you both know here in massachusetts, there is such a disgust with

washington because of dysfunction and washington does not work. the question about bipartisanship here, senator, let me ask you this. you said a mitt romney that he is one of your strongest and earliest backers. he said it comes to dealing with the economic issues, there is no one i would trust more than governor romney. would you be a reliable ally of a president romney? >> i think he pointed out in your initial comment about this functionality in washington. when i went down there, i thought it was dysfunctional. when i got there, it was even worse. it still is. if you see it everyday. in speaking to the independent voters of massachusetts and being that independent of voice. i spoke about 50% with my party and 50% with the other party. that is a lot different than what professor warren would do. i need not work for anybody. i cannot work for president obama, mitt romney, mitch, harry reid -- i work for the people of massachusetts. i am named the least partisan

senator and united states senate. >> it is striking the youth support governor running for president, i assume. >> as i said, when it comes to dealing with the economic issues, absolutely. >> you would be a reliable ally? >> it depends on with the issue is. >> on his economic plan. you said there's no one better. >> i also would like to read the bill. because i do. a lot of people to not to read the bills. i want to vote. i am a reliable vote for the bill. that is evidenced by my voting record. >> it is striking that we look to your campaign ads, is president obama that you see touting your work.

we could not find any instance with you with governor romney having made any campaign appearances with him. there is an appearance york distancing yourself from governor romney to appeal to voters, specifically here in massachusetts. being " -- being too close to him may be a problem. [applause] >> as you know, in the second- most bipartisan member. i take pride in that. i was also proud to stand with him when we did the hiring veterans bill. of course, i will stand with the president. when he does something well, i praise him. >> you are not assessing yourself from governor romney? >> he is all over the country. i am here in massachusetts. when i said he will head of the

economic issues as well, we certainly need to focus on his economic issues. in a $16 trillion national debt we have runaway deficits each and every year. we need to have the people down there and focus in a bipartisan matter. we do not need blood and teeth in the streets. we need people will find solutions. >> in this state, the legacy of senator kennedy is well known. part of that legacy is being able to compromise and work with republicans. can you name republicans in the senate that you are able to work with on big issues that the country faces? >> probably richard would be one that comes to mind. >> not going to be there. >> that is a problem. >> let me ask the question. are there any republicans that will be in the senate that you fill you can work with substantively and compromise with? >> it depends on what the subject matter is. let me give you an example. on the question of fannie and freddie -- fannie mae and freddie mac. the republicans have said across the spectrum that we need to revise fannie and freddie. i think there are wrong. at the that is an issue i think i could work with virtually

every republican in the united states senate because it is an important issue for financing mortgages of people across this country. that is something i can do. i have actually had experience working across the aisle. when i first went to washington during the financial crisis in 2008, i was the head of a bipartisan commission. republicans and democrats. we took on some of the most difficult and challenging issues facing the country. we made reports and recommendations every 30 days. i am very proud to say that about half of our recommendations were unanimous we started with a basic principle -- were unanimous. we start with a basic principle we could agree on. we work from there to build something that was useful. at the end of the day, the reason i'm in this race is not

about partisanship. it is about working families. i will work with anyone -- democrat, republican, libertarian, vegetarian, if they will work for the american family. >> what will be one of your first vote -- one your first votes would be to cast a vote for a majority or minority leader. would you vote for mitch mcconnell to be the leader of the republicans? >> our like to respond to what you said. >> a simple yes or no question. >> off our like to have a chance to respond and i will answer your question. with regard to working with somebody, was working with any person on opposite side of the aisle, she cannot reference one person except someone who is retiring. a truly bipartisan person. i have a history of working across the aisle. 54% with my party.

professor warren would be 100%. when it comes to dealing with the majority or minority leader, i wanted to be clear to mitch mcconnell that i am disgusted as to what is going on down there. he has a lot of work to do to earn my vote. i do not vote for him or harry reid. when i walked in i can vote however i want. you've seen it. you have evidence of it. there is no evidence that professor warren would be a voting and working across the aisle. very few members of the democratic party right now do it. thank goodness we have people like me and others like me. senators know, senator lugar. there are other people down there who can actually get things done.

>> undecided. >> i have made it very clear. >> i would like to say two things. when senator brown talks here in massachusetts about how very bipartisan he is and how very independent he is, he is sure not say the same thing when it goes around the country raising money in the senate. [applause] he goes around this country and what he says to people around the country is that they should contribute to his campaign because if he is reelected, that increases the odds that the republicans will control the senate and he can block president obama's agenda [applause] let's just be honest about what is going on. >> given his vote, to believe his goal is to block and a stretch president obama's agenda? >> fought on economic issues, i absolutely do. in fact, i can do the examples. we had a quarter of a million people unemployed here in the commonwealth of massachusetts last fall. president obama put forward a jobs bill. the first jobs bill would have

supported 22,000 jobs here in the commonwealth. senator brown voted in lockstep with every other republican, no. and we did not get the jobs bill. a few weeks later, there was a jobs bill to prevent the layoffs of teachers and firefighters of police officers all across this commonwealth and this country. senator brown voted in lockstep with the republicans and voted no. we did not fit that bill through. >> if i could respond. >> third, there was a third jobs bill. would have supported 11,000 jobs, mostly in construction to repair transportation that we needed it and as senator brown voted in lockstep with all the other republicans and it just to put icing on the cake, he voted against unemployment insurance extension 16 times for people who were out of work. senator brown has made clear where he stands.

[applause] >> thank you. first of all, she is obviously misstating the facts. these are rejections by both democrats and republicans. [applause] if you're going to come on my record, i would at least have to refer to it. excuse me. i'm not listed in your classroom. please let me respond. [cheers and boos] with regard to the jobs bill, it was rejected in a bipartisan matter. they raised over $450 million in new taxes. in the unemployment benefits, there was no one that lost. my mom was on welfare. i remember it being there as a safety net for people. we also try to find a way to pay for it. professor warren would have voted against it because we had

a compromise that the president put forth and she said she would not have supported the compromise by the only extending the tax policy that has been in place for 10 years, but also to the unemployment benefits that we had feared she would have voted against that because she wanted to raise taxes on some of the folks with in that bracket. we actually did it. no one lost any benefits. i was proud to vote for the bill. as you know, when you are in washington, you have to go back and forth and negotiate final solution to the bill. >> let me extend this period there will be more discussion about how to create the jobs. i want to talk about the fiscal cliff and the debt. the simpson-bowles commission which has gotten so much discussion across the country, they came up with the plan that said, look. we have to cut $4 trillion of the debt. here is how we are going to do it. if we will cut spending, but we're also going to deal with the tax code. more people should pay taxes, they say.

we should eliminate some of these exemptions and deductions. we will get $1 trillion from them and in the process of doing that, we're going to lower rates for everybody and about 10% of that we will pay down the debt. why is that not a common sense, practical solution? you have not said if you will vote down. >> you have to ask harry reid. >> seen never said with the will vote for it or not. i will keep an open mind. i will make sure that we can actually get something done. he gave the state of the union speech pyrrh. to get our fiscal and financial house in order with an

appropriate approach. >> the problem is every team they say in washington, people feel they do not raise taxes. they do it all the time. we have other taxes that are going there on a daily basis. we have a very serious spending problem. >> the more money to give washington the more money they will spend it. i will not raise taxes. they said the proposal will cut 700,000 jobs nationally. >> we are talking about lowering marginal rates.

>> i've already closed this. i have already done this. >> what about the mortgage? >> of course not. and sit down together. if you can sit down on both sides of the aisle -- >> what he does not want to talk about is he has signed a right- wing pledge never to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. that is the grover norquist plan. >> he wants to extend the tax cuts for everybody? >> for example, the buffett

rule. the idea that billionaires should pay at least as much in taxes as their secretaries do, scott brown along with every other republican voted no. it was fine with and that billionaires paid less than their secretaries. oil subsidies -- the oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year. yet, when it came up to get rid of the subsidies, senator brown voted with the republicans to say no. we are going to let them keep the subsidies. that is just wrong. and then the big vote -- this is the really amazing one -- about a month ago, when the question came up about letting the bush tax cuts expire, senator brown followed it to say that he would let taxes rise for 98% of the families here in massachusetts and 97% of the small businesses, he would hold them hostage

unless there were tax cuts for the top 3%. i think that is just wrong. [indiscernbile] >> i am trying to press both sides on what you're saying, ok? i hope that is one of the reasons that i am here. on the question of simpson- bowles, which you accept $3 billion in spending cuts if you got revenue increases? >> the point of simpson-bowles, it used a balanced approach that we must have cuts and revenue increases. i completely agree with that. that is the right approach. it is a moderate, sensible approach, not the approach that scott brown and the republicans have used.

he is trying to use a balanced approach, because he has put forward proposals that would increase revenues. senator brown submitted his proposals to "the boston globe" -- >> senator brown, respond to what she said. >> regarding oil, if anybody thinks by raising taxes on energy producers will not be passed on, they will pass all of those off to our motorists and homeowners and everybody knows that. if you want to have a comprehensive discussion about energy, we should have it, a true all of the above approach. she is against the keystone pipeline. she is also against -- in favor of wind and solar, but we need more of an approach in that. let me talk about the buffet rule as well.

the buffett rule, it funds the government for a day. more importantly, we have our own buffett rule in massachusetts. when she has been talking about everybody paying higher taxes, she had a choice to pay higher taxes herself, and she chose not to do that. number three, all of her criticisms on me is i do not want to raise taxes. that is correct. i do not want to raise taxes on any american in the middle of recession. when i go to businesses, they do not say take all my money and bring it to washington. they say we have been taxed and regulated enough, and the only person here who is a fiscal

conservative is me. >> let me break in here. we will have more of our discussion. we will take a break and be back with our debate in a few minutes. now our candidates in massachusetts continue their debate live from the university of massachusetts in lowell. >> we have at elizabeth warren and scott brown. we're talking about the economy and how to create jobs with concerned students here about job creation and this tough economy that you both are dealing with. i want to introduce mary hazel who has a question. please ask your question. >> good evening. i am a senior here at umass. in may i will graduate in this arena. i am not scared of growing up or going out in the world. what are the policies will you

propose or support help students like me find jobs? >> a great question, and the answer has but the short-term part and a long-term part. in the short term, we have an economy that is struggling to recover, and that shows up and lots of different ways. it is why i support the jobs bill. the president has proposed it as part of his proposal to get the economy jump-started, because it will put paychecks in people's hands and get work done that we need to get done. once we have got those paychecks in people's hands, they spend them in the local economy, with businesses, that creates more demand, the businesses hire more people, and that helps the economy get going. in the short run, it is exactly the right thing to do, and i was disappointed when scott brown and republicans blocked

it. in the long run, there is another answer. that is how we create jobs for the future, and i believe the answer is we have to invest in the future. we have to make this a great place to grow jobs. the way i see that is we make those investments in education, roads, bridges, in water, power, in research, in the things that give us all of the energy going forward so that this is a good place to build jobs. you're in a great state in massachusetts, because massachusetts is on the cutting edge of what we can do in new energy, in clean energy, and building innovation, and tech. we're doing it in biotech. we're making the new advances for the rest of the country, for the rest of the world.

we can invest it in massachusetts, and we can build it in massachusetts. to do that, we need a good federal partner, someone in washington who will be there to fight for us and to invest in us. senator brown? >> thank you for your questions, and congratulations and good luck. we live in one of the greatest states in the country. massachusetts is an innovative state. the challenges that we are facing as i travel all are around massachusetts is the lack of regulatory and tax certainty. people are concerned, do not know what the tax policies will become, what new regulations will be imposed on that. the result is less people hiring and looking to re. as i was with an unemployed mom -- she has been trying to find a job. one the challenges is that people are scared to hire, and

it is the tax policies that are being pushed that are a factor. take it from the national federation of independent businesses, the u.s. chamber of commerce. a lot of proposals pushed by professor warren are job- destroying messages. my proposals allows you to raise a million dollars online with investors, a new financing tool for you and others to create jobs. the hire the veterans bill, i was proud to be present when the president signed the bill. there are many other efforts we have done, but the key is in order to get these initiatives, you need to work together to do it. you cannot be raising taxes and have more spending when we're in a $16 trillion debt because that is the biggest concern i have, that you will not be able to pay back all the amazing amount of

debt you are incurring. >> another issue is the question of immigration and the need for -- >> when do we get to respond here? >> you have gotten a chance to respond. the president has said it is one of his biggest regrets that it did not get passed. i want to interview another student. >> good evening, everyone, i am a business and finance management student. my family is in the dominican republic, and at 16 i was fortunate to become a u.s.

citizen. for those young people who are not as fortunate as me, i want to know if you support or oppose the dream act, and can you please tell us why and why not. >> senator brown, you have called that a form of amnesty. >> let me say congratulations on becoming a u.s. citizen, but let me tell you i am in favor of full legal immigration. i have been working on that since being in the senate. i do not support the dream act. it is a form of back-door amnesty --

>> ok, please go ahead. >> we need to improve our legal immigration system. professor warren is in favor of in-state tuition. she is not in favor of securing our borders. aree aren't things that different. when it comes to the dream act, are there things we can do, certainly, but they want to bring it up and push it through without any debate. the key to get anything done on immigration is working on increasing quotas, so we can do it legally, because we cannot take a class of people and move them ahead of the people who are trying to do it legally. >> he is right. this is a big difference between the two of us.

i would strongly support the dream act. i believe that. i also believe we need comprehensive immigration reform. but we need to do comprehensive immigration reform, visa reform, as part of that. we need to follow the law and enforce our borders, but we need to the immigration reform, and it needs to happen now. we cannot keep putting this off. it is not right. >> i want to move through issues as quickly as we can. i want to touch on foreign policy. the war in afghanistan is drawing to a close. the plans have been laid out for troops to return home. what is an acceptable outcome to the war in afghanistan, and what is our responsibility to achieve that outcome after u.s. troops returned?

>> we have always had difficult returned with describing that, and as a result we need to get our troops out of afghanistan as quickly as we can. >> before the president's timeline? >> it is time to bring our troops home and stop spending $2 billion a week in afghanistan. we need that money. >> the united states does not have responsibility any longer? >> we cannot rebuild afghanistan for ever. we cannot do that. having unrealistic goals and spending more money is the wrong approach. i want to say on this, all three of my brothers served in the military. our service members are incredible. they will do anything we ask of them. they work hard, they are resourceful, but that means we

owe them an obligation to put them out in harm's way when we have clear goals in mind, when it is clear what we're going to do, how we will accomplish it, and how we will get out. >> i am a ranking member on armed services committee. i supported -- i have been to afghanistan, and i supported hispresident's surge and timetable for withdrawal. i did not agree with the date. our goal is to make sure that the taliban and al qaeda do not to join forces. i respectfully disagree. i will rely on the generals on the ground and commander in chief as to when he wants to bring in our troops home.

>> should he recommit forces? >> i would hope that does not happen. i would rely on the guidance from the president and hope he would come to congress to let us know what his plans are. >> who is your model supreme court justice? >> justice scalia is a very good judge. justice kennedy. justice kennedy is very good, and justice roberts, justice sotomayor, they are very qualified people there who do in a very good -- >> they do not exactly agree. >> if you had to pick one? >> i do not have to pick one, there are plenty up there, and i am proud of the ones we have. >> it would probably be elena kagan. >> let me ask you, why do you think massachusetts has never elected a female senator or

governor? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> no idea? it does it trouble you? >> well, right now i am trying to do something about that. [laughter] >> senator brown, do think the senator kerry would be a good secretary of state? >> i do. he has a very good knowledge of world affairs. he is a leader on that issue, and i look to his guidance when we're dealing with foreign issues. i think he is. >> i want to do two important questions. it has been a hard-fought race. can you each say something you

admire about the other, ms. warren? >> i think senator brown has a lovely family. [laughter] he does. [laughter] i agree with him when he voted for -- to their read of don't ask, do not tell. i think he was right. >> senator brown. >> she is a hard-working professor and is qualified. she has a hard-working family. she is such a good professor. i will do everything to make sure she will continue to be in that position. >> i saved the most contentious

for last. the worst red sox season in decades. does bobby valentine deserve another year or does he deserve to be fired? >> i'm still in wounded mode on that one. >> should he be given another chance? c'mon, you have to commit. >> i would give him another year. >> professor warren said at the beginning of this season that the red sox would win 90 games. we need to do better next year. there are a lot of palms and they need to work out for themselves -- there are a lot of

problems. >> closing statements. >> thank you for everybody that's here participating and listening. i'm from here. i grew up here. i went to school here. be your united states senator has been the greatest honor in my life, aside from my marriage and my kids. i read the bills and to see how they affect us. you sent me down there to be an independent voter and thinker. i am working to find people of good will to move this country forward. we have some real challenges right now.

jobs, national security. you'd need people down there that work together. i need your vote. thank you for holding this. >> miss warren. >> thank you for being here. i am not a professional politician. i got in this because america's working families are getting hammered. washington is rigged for those with an army of lobbyists. when it comes down do it, he stands with the millionaires and billionaires. he stands with big oil companies. he is not there for people that

are out of work. he is not there for women who want birth control covered by their health insurance. i didn't want to go to washington to work for millionaires and billionaires and big oil. i want to fight for working families and small businesses. that is what this is for me. >> thank you very much. we want to thank our sponsors. don't forget to vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> c-span cameras live in denver. this is the location where president obama and mitt romney will debate tomorrow night. this is the television crew

getting ready for the debate tomorrow night. will take a look around for just a bit. the debate will focus on domestic policy tomorrow night. blair -- jim lehrer will be the moderator. the debate at 9:00 p.m. we will open up the phone lines and take your tweets. our coverage gets underway at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the candidates' spending the day preparing for the debate. paul ryan is visiting iowa. three towns on his schedule today. vice-president biden is in north

carolina in charlotte and asheville. news from the campaign trail from ohio. they are beginning their early voting in ohio. also in pennsylvania. a judge halted the enforcement i.d.at state's voter law. the president is in henderson, nevada. mitt romney prepping at a denver hotel. this is what they had to say about the debate. >> now, you may have heard that in a few days my opponent in this election and i are going to have a debate. i'm looking forward to it.

i know folks from the media are speculating on who will have the best zingers. >> you are. >> i do not know about that. who will put the most points on the board. governor romney is a good debater. i'm just ok. what i'm concerned about is having a serious discussion about what we need to do to keep the country growing and restore security for hard-working americans. that's what people will be listening for. that is the debate that you deserve. >> you will get some visitors this week. there is a lot of interest surrounding the debate. people want to know who will

win. there will be scoring of winning and losing. it is not so much the winning or losing. it is about something bigger than that. this is an opportunity for each of us to describe the pathway for it for america that we would choose. i look forward to these debates. i am delighted we will have three debates that will span almost an entire month. i believe people of colorado will choose a better way forward for our country. we can afford four more years like the last four years. >> the first of the three presidential debates tomorrow night in denver. the debates at hofstra university on tuesday, the 16th.

live coverage here on c-span, c- span radio, and c-span.org. looking at some of our live coverage today. live on c-span with a discussion of how corporate money is influencing the presidential congressional races. live at noon on c-span2. the increase scheduled to begin in january called the fiscal cliff. education secretary arne duncan will be speaking at the national press club with an update on the current standing of american education at 1:00 p.m. eastern. now to a debate between eric cantor and wayne powell and hosted by the virginia chamber of commerce.

>> c-span will be covering the debate tonight. both candidates have asked everybody in the room to turn their cell phones to off. please have them off. if after each question you could please hold your applause to the end of the debate. we want to make sure we can move in an expeditious way. we will take time from the debate if we have to wait for applause. a little bit about the format of the debate. we begin and end with closing

comments from the candidate. i will asked a set of questions to each candidate. the opening question will go to a candidate who will have two minutes to answer. there will be a two-minute response and that will be followed with a rebuttal. after those three questions, the candidate can ask each other a question as well and the same time will be allocated. we conclude with a set of questions that i will ask as the moderator. the questions i will ask have been generated in terms of fame by the business community. they come form the business community - -they come from the

business community. please welcome congressman eric cantor. [applause] thank you. and now his challenger, mr. wayne powell. [cheers] we begin with three-minute opening statements. >> thank you very much. i think all the hosts for tonight's debate. there is no doubt we're in trouble times.

the percentage of americans with a job is at its lowest level in 30 years. the number of americans in poverty is the highest it has ever been. families are under a lot of stress. think about what that means, i think about the single mother, the working mother who may be here in this county and i ask myself, what is he thinking right now? what will she be thinking when bed?ucks her kids into she may want to go to community college to expand her skill to get another job but the prospects are not there. i think her challenge represents a challenge for all of us.

tonight you'll hear two different visions on how we would address that challenge and two divisions that will take us to two different features in america. one path leads to higher taxes, more regulation, less jobs and more dependency. the other path leads to lower taxes, less regulation, more jobs, more success. i support cutting taxes for small business men and women to help them retain more jobs. my opponent supports raising taxes on small businesses which will mean fewer jobs. i support a moratorium on new red tape and regulations except for the safety and health of the public until the unemployment levels come down.

my opponent has said he supports more regulation fell and that meaning less growth and less jobs. i oppose obamacare. i want to repeal it and replace it. my opponent supports obamacare and says it is working and wants to expand on it. these are some of the differences you here tonight. i look forward to it robusta debate on the issues. >> thank you. mr. powell? >> my name is wayne powell and i'm surprised to be here. i am a lawyer. i'm most proud to be an american

and a virginian. eric may say some things about me. puppet.ay i'm an obama i believe insurance companies should not deny people have coverage because they have pre- existing conditions. i think we need to cut spending. there are financial commenced that are important for this country. that does not make me someone who believes -- he may call me a big spender. i think we need to cut the increase in medicare costs, none of which would impact the benefit themselves. he may say i'm in favor of

cutting $716 billion. he wants to privatize medicare. washington is a place where everybody place the blame game. the democratic leaders think the problems are caused by the republicans. as you know, these are not republican and democrat problems. these are american problems. the senate that we address the serious fiscal problems, the senate we can get the solutions and not gobbledygook. i'm not a professional politician. you can tell by my hair cut. i take a second seat to no one

in my devotion to this country. i served 30 years on active duty. i did it because it was the right thing. 80% of the people in congress have never served in the military. they did not know what it is like to send sons and daughters into war. our veterans deserve much more to get their benefits than corporations that sent our jobs across the water deserve to get special tax incentives through the tax code. thank you for inviting me and thank you for being here. [applause]

>> how do propose to create new jobs and less complicated tax system? >> attacks increase is the last thing that our economy needs right now. i would support the extension of the existing tax rates and to reform the tax code. we do bring rates down and to make sure that the tax code is fairer for all and to close the special-interest loopholes. iff has ahe fiscal cl lot to do with spending. i served on the commission and we came up with over $2 trillion in savings. they include it trying to reform our our culture program and

eliminating fraudulent payments, modernizing the postal service and to modernize the federal pension systems. these kinds of moves that i think we can come together on and all agree to sit down and resolve them. it has been there difficult to try to get both sides to come to say that we want to solve these problems. >> i have heard this term "fiscal cliff" many times. we had the super committee meet after mr. kantor left those talks of june of last year. congress decided we will agree on the sequester funds and that is the fiscal cliff. it is about a congress who decided they would rather kick the can down the road so we have

to wait another year. those cuts need to be done with a scalpel. i hear a person who will not cooperate will not sit down with the opposing party and that is what we need to do. we need to not continue all the tax cuts. i agree with tim kaine, $500,000 should be the limits. voting for tax cuts during two wars is fiscally irresponsible. everybody knows it. now we want to make a permanent? this is insanity. we have to reform the taxes.

it is time to get action. look at the tax code. keep some incentives. the people that earn $500,000 -- we have to have balance. >> these tax rates are going away. we have the sequester. the president would not agree to the kinds of spending cuts that mr. powell says he is for. the president insisted we put in place a sequester. after the failure of the super committee, congress had a duty. we put forth a bill to substitute the cuts to make sure they do not impact the

lives of virginians or the national security. 90% of jobs in virginia, from the defense industry -- 19% of jobs in virginia. we have put forward solutions that did not aggravate a bad economy. we do not want to raise taxes. >> if there is a split decision, each party will have to compromise to avoid taking the country over the cliff. what compromises the believe your own party will have to make to walk the country back from the precipice? >> we have to get control over spending. we have to keep certain financial commitments -- social

security, medicare, medicaid. the defense budget is bloated. we have a bigger defense budget than other countries. people against our national security interests are called terrorists. those are the people i was pursuing when i was mobilized after 9/11. that doesn't mean we need to lose those jobs. first he supported a sequester and then he didn't. it is to blame game. what need to do is take a scalpel and look at the outsourcing of our defense. we need to make sure we're not sending things to halliburton

and places like that. the defense department should be able to support itself. they do not need help from all the contractors. these are people that contribute to his campaign. that's one reason why we have the spending problem. >> then the respond to that. you heard mr. powell say he is not for the sequester and now he is for defense cuts. that sequester will take is to a point where we have to rethink whether we're a global power. we'll have the smallest ground force since 1940. the smallest navy since world war i. and the smallest tactical

fighter force in the history of our country. that is what the sequester would do. how do we manage down the debt and deficit so we can pay more of the tax dollars to the interest burden? mr. pell wants to raise taxes -- mr. powell wants to raise taxes. we have a terrible economy. how do you help them? by creating more jobs and opportunities. get government out of the business of making it so difficult. allow for small business people to start to invest again. we want to be investing in our

future. that is what we need to do. we need an agenda that is pro- growth. you heard mr. powell say he is not for voting with his party all the time. is obamacare something he supports? >> the sequester is a bad idea. he supported it last year and you do not supported this year. it is very simple. i'm not against small businesses. i am a small businessman. it is about what is good for the country.

if we reform the taxes, no one will be paid too much. look at bowles-simpson. ay it is the fault of the president. .> let's talk about taxes again the and pending fiscal cliff has brought a degree of urgency. one approach calls for the lowering of individual rights across the board and the reduction of existing tax exemptions. president obama and some democrats have called for continuing the bush tax cuts for middle income families. what do you think is the best

approach to individual tax rate that can reduce the deficit? >> we do need to make sure we're not raising taxes, especially in this tough economy. what is good for the country is to create jobs. that is how we get going again to help manage down that debt. we do not want to raise taxes. we want comprehensive reform. when companies are looking to relocate, it is not always attracted to locate here because we're the highest taxed locale. we need to bring the corporate tax rates down and to make sure we change the peculiarly in tax law which forces american based

multinationals. we need to make sure they did not pay taxes twice if they are operating abroad. we did not have a territorial system. we have a system which ties one hand behind the back. we want them here. they create jobs. we know the overwhelming number of businesses file as individuals. they pay their taxes at the individual rate. we want to make sure those rates come down as well. we have to do some reform and make some tough decisions and to close the loopholes. we should do that.

the president and his party have said tax reform starts with tax increases. there is a disagreement on that. that disagreement has held things up. you create more jobs by giving a tax break so people can keep more money to grow their businesses and expand jobs and opportunity. >> mr. powell? >> tonight it is all about taxes. we cannot let taxes go up. i have some of your literature. most of it is lies about me. let me tell everybody here, he never talks about working

people. he only talks about businesses. this is is the only thing that creates jobs. people are waiting for somebody to call. how about tax incentives for regular people that are trying to put bread on their plates? how about students working three jobs with a $50,000 loan? you voted against cutting the interest for those loans? we have to take care of our own . i am a small businessman. my employees and their husbands and their wives. these people are suffering. the top 1% of our population

controls 7% of the wealth. we now have 1% of the population controlling 24% of the welfare. there is something wrong with that disparity. we have to distribute it fairly. the people that make the most have to pay their fair share. >> one minute. >> there is a lot of talk about fairness. nearly 20 million americans are unemployed or underemployed. let's give them the opportunity to go back to work. this notion of fairness -- i did not believe that is what most americans believe. we should have the opportunity

to learn our success. too many people don't have that fair shot to earn a success. we need to do a lot of things to give these individuals the tools so they can get up on the ladder of success. it is not in, redistribution -- come not in, redistributi redistribution. >> question for mr. powell. >> we are facing some of the worst economic times of our lifetime. people are out of work and they are hurting. we are trying to deal with the deficit and looking for ways to cut.

you say that if you're elected, i defer stay in congress, you'll introduced legislation to make campaigns publicly funded. if first act in congress would be to increase the deficit and take money from other important programs or to raise taxes to pay for political campaigns. still we have poor pressing issues and to create a government welfare program for politicians? >> that is a great question. [laughter] i did nothing public financing of elections is a great idea. at least it comes from the people and not from the corporations. [cheers] wo,'re either number one, t or three in receiving money --

it is almost obscene the millions of dollars but you have earned. does anybody think the corporations give him the million dollars a more just because he is a nice guy? they do that because they want him to vote the way they want him to vote. it is being in demadignant. our system is obscene. yes, i believe that as an alternative to this process where corporations pay for votes -- somebody says we want to keep that glass-steagall o ut. to have a person that supports

the barbarians, the very parasites who caused the miltown in this country in 2008. that is to his votes for. it is design to have people find out what the further hedge fund. he takes that out. even chuck grassley said he is carrying water for wall street. that has to stop. >> i would ask -- the question when to the priority. we have so many pressing issues. to put a bill to rack up the deficit and to impose new taxes to fund political campaigns. thinkm not for that and i

that is wrongheaded. what does that have to do with creating jobs or educating children? listen to what each of us is saying. there is nothing but insistence that everything is wrong but no prescription on how to fix it from mr. powell. we have to help small businesses by lowering their taxes. we have to make sure regulation to talk overtake the launch but our spirits -- the entrepreneur spirit. make sure that others can have access to health care. we want to make sure that is replaced so that businesses are nerousrdened by that owners la

law. >> maybe you would have voted with medicare part d so that medicare people could negotiate the prices for medicare prescription cost instead of keeping that large going to pharmaceutical companies. that increased our deficit by almost $1 trillion. maybe if we can negotiate more, maybe we can have more money left for infrastructure and schools and teacher pay and police officers. that is where we need it. it is not about regulation. i was looking how to make a profit. we overcome the obstacles we find.

frome so far removed reality. i don't think you know what the small business is a less it is a hedge fund. this was a difficult thing for me. i was going to ask about the insuring the treasury bonds or why you carve out the spousal exemption for why you took $5 million from sheldon adelson. this is from my son. last year when you and the president went on a budget standoff that threaten to shut down the government, he voted to continue paying members of congress. you voted against a bill which would have been short the members of the armed services

continue to get paid. how could you in good conscience vote to continue your own pay but vote to stop paying our servicemen and women that you voted to send into combat in afghanistan? >> none of that is untrue. those offhand references to money that i took, that is not true. we've got to make sure we're with the facts here. you can go on your personal attacks all you wanted. it is not doing anything to bring down the deficit. >> if you could answer the question. >> that is what is wrong in washington -- name:, personal assassination doesn't get us anywhere. it makes the job of trying to solve problems more difficult.

military pay -- nobody wants to deny the pay to our men and women in uniform and that is what at stake with the sequester as well. we have to make sure we live up to our obligation. without them, we would not be here. thank you for your military service and i think your son for what he's doing for all of us. i go to washington every day and try to address the needs of our veterans. in the house, we have increased the veterans administration budget by 4%. we want to make sure that we help our veterans. they have helped us for sure. the veterans are facing the same

kind of difficulties that all of us are. there are some tremendous programs locally. troops to trucks. these are the kinds of things we can do to get the veterans back to work after they come back from their service. >> as expected, he didn't answer my question. i think we know the answer. one thing that needs to be corrected is devoted against a loss of veteran acts. you voted against the suicide prevention program and expanding some of the medical treatment for returning veterans. as for the suicide program, there are for every person killed in combat, there are 18

people that commit suicide, 1600 a year. this is something the congress should be addressing immediately instead of talking about making sure that paul ryan tax cut romney's 25% for millionaires goes through. you have not since for the last three or four years and you will not. you'll kick it down the line. >> i cannot be more grateful for your service. all of us who live not serve are grateful for your service and many others who have served this country. it doesn't mean we're not patriotic. i want to correct something.

you are not listening. we continue to try and address the needs of our veterans. what happens in washington -- it often becomes a cut. that's the problem with the spiralling of spending. i can assure you the veterans and the defense department is a priority and will live up to it. >> epa regulations will increase the cost of building coal-fired power plants. the agency maintains these are critical, critics suggest it will be economically impossible to build a new coal-fired plant again. do you support the new rules coal? do you believe that coal is

destined to play a diminished role? >> i do not know the regulations you're talking about. i think the future is renewals. this was one of the 10 hottest years of the last 13. i think most scientists don't believe it is an accident. the climate of the world is changing. we have to do what we can to try to save the planet. that our airsuree th is clear. i do believe we have to look at the regulations to see if they hurt the coal industry. we have won the best fields off

the coast for windfarms. why don't we invest our money in windfarms and solar. why are we not doing what we know we can recycle and use? the days of the fossil fuels are numbered. we have national security issues related to the access of oil. if anyone has seen anybody interviewed in china will use a lot of coal, you cannot even see it outside the window of the person being interviewed. there is so much pollution. eathe.d clean air to brie we cannot simply dismember epa.

we have to be regulated to keep our clean air. >> wayne says he doesn't know the epa regs. he has come out with a carbon tax. a carbon tax will take -- the chamber started saying we were interested in the competitiveness of america as a place to do business. the real advantage we have is the resources, the fossil fuels that we have to help afford energy than anyplace else in the world. you heard mr. powell talked a lot about that. he did not mention how you leverage off of these resources

and do it in an environmentally sensitive way. we have shale gas. mr. powell talked about offshore. he wants to put windfarms offshore. this administration said it is impossible to drill offshore. it creates jobs and helps produce energy security in the united states. the epa is off base in its regulations. we saw the byproduct of that with a publicly traded company which chose in virginia to locate is laying off 400 jobs in virginia because of epa regs. >> there are a lot of people

over it john f. kennedy talked about going to the moon. we need to be thinking about renewals. grenobl we cannot use the same old method of extraction. all the analysts have talked about windfarms. it is all the energy we are producing. it is a significant in that span. china and europe are doing it. if we could convert our system, we could employ many more people than we can imagine. it takes imagination and talking to people.

we are only talking about the old, not the new. >> almost all republicans have called for the replacement of obamacare. certain provisions -remove- in the lifetime cap on benefits tend to be broadly popular. do you favor keeping or mandating the continuation of these provisions? >> we to repeal obamacare. the affordable care act relies on $1 trillion in tax hikes. this affects small businesses. over half a trillion -- that $700 billion that it took out of

medicare. obamacare takes it out of the popular programs that mr. powell just mentioned, description drug plan part d. one of the most successful programs we have had which is common underbudgeted. it takes money out of medicare advantage. umping seniors in our district are particularly fond of -- something seniors in our district are particularly fond of. we can make sure it doesn't happen in a much cost-effective way by establishing and funding either high risk pools at the state level. we can afford competition.

right now there's not enough of that. we can create that through cross state purchasing. we need to keep the lawyers out of the emergency room. we need to cut down on frivolous lawsuits. that will save over $50 billion . we can do this and people can have the kind of health care that they want. >> i can think back to my mother. i consider now going out and getting a competitive bid after her voucher runs out in april or may every year. that is what the ryan budget calls for.

that is what you want. you're on your own. go out and compete. you'll be okay. it doesn't work. medicare is a good program. you can call obamacare. i do not care. you say you'll replace it -- with what? the one trillion dollar taxes -- that is for the hospitals and the pharmaceutical people that gave you $628,000. those are the people that will be paying taxes. we need to sit down and we need

to talk about it and come uop with a plan -- and come up with a plan. i have a story about people whose lives were saved because the cap was removed. they could stay on their parents' policy until they are 26. you cannot run on that record. you have to run a what you did. -- where all jobs the jobs? >> the affordable care act is what we're talking back, not medicare. the medicare changes would not

affect and 80-year-old senior. inaccurate statements. you say those taxes are not paid by working people. 80% of those paying the taxes under obamacare, they didn't have insurance approved by the government, that requires people to of health care the way washington says. 80% of those paying the tax -- this is not being paid by some mythical big corporation they did not seem to care for. it is paid by working people. that's why these taxes are no good. obamacare needs to go. [applause] >> 19% of virginians workforce

is tied to the defense industry. every analysis said the automatic defense cuts in sequestration has the potential to harm the virginia economy. what is your strategy for deficit-reduction that would not have far reaching negative affects on the commonwealth? >> last year he supported sequestration. we to look at what the impact is in this state and every state. virginia is very dependent on the defense industry. i don't believe it will have that impact as soon as it needs to if we take a scalpel and knocked an axe. you could cut the sequestered funds from defense. you could look at aspects of the defense industry that are not located in virginia.

you go to these committees and to the department of defense and it helps to know something about the department of defense. i work very close to many contractors, some of whom should not been working. some were lazy. there were earning two or three times what i was earning. there are areas that we could cut. the sequester will go through. i hear there will be a magical meeting before the end of the year. it is not a big parriority for mr. cantor. i believe this is an urgent

issue. you have to sit down and let the calculus. you have to take a scalpel. keep what you need. >> mr. powell keeps saying i support the sequester. that's not true. the president insisted of its insertion into the debt ceiling deal so this country will not go into default. the president did not want to go along with addressing the real deficit issue, which is health care entitlements. problems veryolve difficult in washington. the president was absent from the discussion that went on in capitol hill.

the super committee was unable to solve the problem. i went over and just visited the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and i asked him what it means for virginia and for the national security of our country? he said we have to rethink the nature of our being a superpower. .

being a congressman is about. you do your best work when we are at home. you go any business small business people. you go into visit classrooms and working families. you understand the problems you are having. the job is to understand that and see how we can make it work again. >i would just ask you to pay attention to the inconsistencies that he is talking about here just in this hour. >> mr. paowell.

>> the biggest danger to national security issue pertaining to be the senior or majority leader in the congress. your dysfunction was named by moody's and s&p and bob gates, it they said this was a national security issue. you talk about national security issue. you caused it. sequester is not the issue. the issue is the blame game. i have never been in congress. i will be soon. congress did this and did that. let me tell you something. the constitution says that the congress establishes the budget. for you to stand here and say you did not vote for the

sequester when you did, this is not magical thinking. this is a very difficult process. i in trying. -- i am trying. the need to sit down and talk. >> let me have one final question. one issue that has been on the radar screen for 20 years is transportation in virginia. virginia has been called the best date. one of the issues that has arisen recently is that we were down because we were not enough for the transportation industry. is there anything they can be doing to assist virginia in trying to ensure that this infrastructure stays modernize and we do not have the kind of gridlock we are developing?

>> the first order of business is the federal government ought to get out of the way. we ought to lead virginia spin the transportation dollars the way they see fit. i plan to make the decision at the local and state level that need to be made. furthermore, i think that there are many restrictions on the participation of states when it comes to toll roads and the rest. we ought to be loosening those restrictions, whether it has to do with our dissipation of public/private partnerships, there are many restricts that they seem to think is a good idea. a state like virginia is growing. they held back because of the infrastructure shortcomings. there is a lot we can do.

>> you did not like the stimulus that the present initiated. i think he requested some of the stimulus funds from a rapid transport system from french bird -- from fredericksburg to north virginia. >> you are wrong. >> let me finish. in any case, you do not like government. he should resign and then i'll take over. the government does he a role. and that people all over the district to did not predict i met people all over the district -- i met people all over the district who cannot get connectivity for their cell phone or their cell phone to

work. these are things this will create roads. this is back when the marginal rate was 94% in this country. i want you to pay more. you have earned a lot more. the government does have a macro view, a duty to talk to the states, as to what they need. if they have enough tax revenue, i think they have the lowest since 1950. it has been a long time. they're saying we can work with the state. give the states the power to work with the money they want to. the federal government needs to

get out of the way. remember the interstate program. remember the trip to the loan. beazer all federally funded programs. >> -- these are all federally funded programs. >> e-mails characterized my statements once again. i think the state ought to have control. i am not saying that washington should not give states the money. transportation is a governmental function. we all believe in a limited government. that is what we're trying to get to. you mentioned the lowest tax revenue. there is a reason for that. we have a lackluster economy. there's not enough economic activity. the whole discussion we have had tonight comes back to that. how are we going to create more economic activity?

we do so by making america more competitive by lowering taxes and getting a regulatory environment and repealing obamacare. these are the burdens we have got to remove. >> and is now time for closing statements. congressman kantor -- cantor goes first. >> this is a robust discussion. it is a debate that has been tougher with what is wrong with politics today. that is a rash of personal attacks on my family. as we saw, at a competitive disregard for the truth. none of these negative tax to anything to trade a job or educate a child or do anything to bring down the deficit. the thames at character assassination -- the attempt at

character assassination make it hard to compromise and sit down and get something done. i think you underestimate the decency of the voters of the seventh district. i have the honor honoring been for seven years. i have every confidence that the voters will reject your-came to your campaign. this is about what kind of country we want to be. there is one that i advocated that will produce more jobs. his view is that we need to raise taxes. the fact is we all know that the unprecedented prosperity of america did not come because the government just bit more money. it came because individuals, on to bring yours, came to this country.

they built their businesses. that is what we have to focus on. i just want to reference a small-business owner down the street, a restaurant owner. he, just like the waitress and cook, what think of what together is more customers walking into the door. more diners means more business and tips and wages. in means war compensation so you can hire more people reject it means more compensation so you can hire more people -- it means more compensation show you can hire more people. it is about you is best fit to lead, to create an environment where we can see more economic activity and jobs. that is what this is about. it is very clear the two visions.

i want to thank you for hosting us tonight. [applause] >>: 2 thank everybody for being here. this is the first time in 10 years that the candicandidates e debated. thank you for sponsoring this. he did not hear what happened prior to the normal course of low taxes, too much regulation. that is all he talks about.

this is much too painful. the people that are struggling to get their jobs, the people i had talked to, the people that are struggling to make it are the people who lost their jobs because of the wild speculation which your deregulation caused. the people putting in their mortgages, all the things people have suffered from since 1999. these are all things we have not mentioned tonight. you hear lower taxes. everybody knows this. we are in a war. how irresponsible it is to say lower regulation, lower taxes, and to have his people in afghanistan.

i think he can overcome the washington speak, then i want your support. 12 years is long enough. if you cannot think of what his legislative accomplishments were over the last two years, and then you are not alone. thank you. have a good evening. fo[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you. we would like to thank the virginia chamber for hosting this event and car wrecks of things such a great host and sponsor. let's have a round of applause for our two candidates. thank you very much.

>> the campaign 2012 bus took a tour asking students what the most important issue was to them in this election. here are some of their brief video responses. >> the most important one has to be foreign-policy. it dictates how we operate with other countries and how other countries proceed us. whenever one to be perceived in a negative manner. >> i believe in this election the most important issue is education. i think education should be the forefront of every campaign. >> most important to me is the economy. i am going to be graduating this year.

>> for me the most important thing to consider in this political election is the foreign policy of each candidate. we are in the volatile world. this'll be the major decision factor appeared >> the most important decision to me is the economy. it will affect my generation. this is for our generation. what happens in the economy will affect as for the rest of our lives. >> by the way, you can find out more about our political coverage c-span.org /campaign2012. >> we are going live to the area of the first presidential debate with the debate will take place tomorrow. our coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. and the debate at 9:00 p.m.

>> we are live outside the ritchie center, about 10:15 a.m. eastern. school is in session at the university of denver. mitt romney is on the outskirts as they prepare for tomorrow night's debate. president obama finishing up some last-minute preparation in nevada.

tomorrow night is the first of three debates. it to be a focus on domestic policy. there is a news coming out from the campaign trail in pennsylvania. the press reporting that democrats that the new voter advocation requirements from going into affect on election day. democrats said the requirement was a ploy to help defeat the president while republicans said it was an effort to prevent voter fraud. they will still be able to ask voters for a valid vote to i did vacation but those without them can vote on a regular polling machine. -- identification but those without them can vote on a regular polling machine.

>> the milly dowler is setting up for tomorrow night. -- the reporters are setting up for tomorrow night. this is the sign of the first presidential debate. tomorrow night is focusing on domestic policy. the 22nd will be a foreign policy debate. all of the debates will be like here on c-span. our coverage more night starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

>> our camera is taking to inside the center at the university of denver, at the site of the first presidential debate tomorrow night. we mentioned that the pennsylvania judge has blocked the implementation of that state voter identification law. talking points memo is a tweet tinged that of -- tweeting that [inaudible] what you're seeing here is also the media area inside. this is not where the debate will be held. this is just a milly dowler area of all the reporters and journalists -- this is just the media area of all the reporters and journalists.

this is the area that is known as the spent area. after the debates, you will see the advocates from each side come out and speak to television. the president and mitt romney are spending the day preparing for tomorrow night's debate.

the vice presidential candidates are on the campaign trail. paul ryan is in ohio with three stops today. joe biden is in north carolina. we are going to take you live to the new america foundation here in washington. they are hosting a panel on how corporate money is impacting the presidential races. it is just getting under way. this is live coverage on c-span. >> the idea is to get beyond just the basic idea of that it is a big amount of money. when i first got involved in this issue of in 1996, i was working on the hill. i remember writing this cowhole session. that begins to seem like the line from dr. evil's demand

for $1 million. we are going to do a couple of brief presentations and then an open ended presentation. michaelst will be c-span.or scherer to give us the landscape of this. i will run their some of the questions we might want to be asking. we will do that pretty quickly. then we we will be joined by trevor potter, katherine mangu- ward. many of us have known trevor for many years. katherine mangu-ward is a fellow here. hopefully in addition to moderating she will also provide some provocation which is

always useful. with no more do, i'm going to thank you for coming in turn it over to michael. >> i am the one who knew trevor when he was a lawyer for john mccain which i thought was a very important job. nothing like being a lawyer for stephen colbert. maybe one day i can say i work for comedy central, too. i want to give you a brief overview. at the end of july, we are trying our best to project with the money would come from and what the differences would be in terms of the various sides. the point we're trying to make, one that there is a real difference in political money strategy that they are employing the cycle. the obama campaign is heavily reliant on small dollars, regulated money, contributions

under $2,500 from individuals. the campaign has total control over and can spend as they want. the exception your is priorities usa which we were saying maybe would make 60 million earlier. authorities have been saying they wanted to make $100 million. there were not a lot of what the liberal democrats coming forward to give them money. in recent weeks, there has been a little bit of a turnaround. it is nothing compared to what the republicans have had on their sides. there are a few different factors. it is easier to raise money traditionally for no's than a yes. it is easier when you have been angry donor base was to get back in power. you have a large class of mostly private business entrepreneur who have played up money.

some know mitt romney want to be there. some are his givers to our big supporters of barack obama in 2008 but have soured on obama and switched team. some come from industries that have significant government al.erest in oil, gas, or co there is seed money from payday lenders. whenre hoping for a romney a. in. on the democratic side there's not a collection of people appeared that does not mean and no point in the future will there be a large amount of what the liberals. in this cycle, it is very and even. the saving grace of the president is that he proved in 2008 uniquely able to raise

enormous amounts of money in small amounts from enormous amount of people. we are talking 3 million donors for his campaign. just to give you an idea on how it compares to romney, this is their reports that came up primarily fund-raising through the end of august. barack obama raised $147 million of his primary dollars from people who gave under to wonder dollars. these are people mostly going online -- $200. these are most of people going on line are being hit up by campaign aides. it these donations average in the $15 or $30 range. not much more than that. it adds up to an enormous amount of money. 34% of his take. romney this side has been

disappointing among small dollar donors, but much more than john mccain in 2008. that was arguably more difficult year for republicans. he has raised $40 million. within the campaign, on the high end, the reverse has happened. barack obama is raising less money than needed in 2008 as a sitting president appeared in 2008 it was $2,300 the max you could give up. this cycle is $2,500. at the end of august obama had raised 16 sermon from -- 16% from that group. romney is good at raising money to in part with $2,500. he has raised $102 million through the end of august from

people who had maxed out on their donations. that is reflected in the super pacs. they give the max to him, but sold from their friends and colleagues. then they write a check for $100,000 or $200,000 or more to one of the super pacs. what does this mean for politics? does this increase transform politics going forward? it is a little complicated. one of the driving forces behind this but that some lower court decisions which allow outside money much easier access for airwaves. the barriers that were there in the post-watergate era that prevented corporations and people from pulling their money to spend huge amounts on

television before an election have largely gone away. that has unleashed this outside spending spree. i am guessing in the few months will look back on this election we will say the peak of the power of these pacs may have come in the primaries were they really transformed republican primaries. newt gingrich and rick santorum almost certainly were not at stake in the race as long as they did after losing several contests in each case with out a million air or four backing them with checks as high as $5 million. as a result, the republican

primary was much more prolonged than it would have been. romney and his friends have to spend much more money than they expected defending him in those early months. the whole dynamic of what we are used to wear we have a nominee, we are up in it for a few weeks. since then, the super pak sets and in a huge wave is sumner. when romney wins, he does not have the money he needs to compete with obama. he relied heavily on super pacs to do is advertising. this is not technically coordinated advertising. trevor can get into the realities there. it had some obvious positive affect inholding parity with the president as he issued a blistering attack against romney

this summer. it has shown to have clear weaknesses. both campaigns will tell you this. the super pac did not follow a simple narrative might be obama advertising did. the obama campaign built a story line starting in april that tried to portray mitt romney as a certain type of person and then they presented it as the months went on new evidence. there is the offshore tax havens, etc., and they built this story line in a swing state. the super pacs operating independently were not able to build that. you have situations in which two different super pacs would have conflicting add in the same market supporting mitt romney. one would say that barack obama is a really nice guy but he

could not get the job done. in the next commercial break you have an ad that says barack obama was never a nice guy, he is a radical socialist lunatic who's trying to take your job. the more money did not feed into a larger narrative in a way that i think the romney campaign would have preferred. a second reason why it is less effective now is under sec rules, the super pac campaign are able to get lowest available rate for their advertising right now. super pacs are not allowed to do that. they are spending far more, sometimes three times as much, and to get the same money. did the third reason i think

you're seeing things less effective, in the last month or citizens are waking up and spending more dollars. a bunch of people were coming at the last minute. we have not really seen that. the small dollar fund-raising model has been able to expand nicely for obama toward the end. romney has had to spend a good fortune in september going to fund-raisers trying to collect these $2,500 checks. he has been very successful. it really was a strategic disadvantage at that time in the race. we can get into some of the other questions here.

the other thing i would say is that i think there is going to be an interesting political legacy of this election. in all the elections i have covered in 2000 when it was a totally different world, there have always been well the people with large checks putting money into our political system in some way or another. technically, it is not a brand new ball game. the increase the visibility of the super pacs and the way they can raise money and the visibility of these ads were a lot of these money before went into things he did not see on tv has raised this issue profile for the public. he saw the present a few weeks ago saying he would like to explore the possibility of a

constitutional amendment. when a politician pulls the constitutional amendment card, who sees it as a real political winner for him over the long haul. there's some polling recently that there is concern among republicans. not a lot of people think these checks are good. what we have not seen yet are the real corruption scandals which tend to follow this kind of thing. there is a lot of concern about democrat specifically going into 2016. after what happened in the republican primary, there is a

huge barrier to overcome. obama was always going to be pretty fine. he is going to be outspent but he is an incumbent sitting president of enormous fund- raising potential. he was not going to be at a huge disadvantage. if you have a bill next time in which both parties are running from the ground up or democrat running against republican incumbent, it is difficult to see how any candidates can really get into the race without having a few very wealthy friends. that really changes the whole way politics is done. he basically need your billionaire or zero hundred million neaire. they may leave this country on the path toward the situation. not as wealthy people will be leaving at $2,500 -- you can

get to the $500 checks that the numbers keep going up. at increasing control over the political process. democrats that i have talked to are interested in provoking a backlash against that. >> i will have the microphone back. >> thank you. that was fantastic. >> i want to set some context here by talking about some of the questions we might ask about how things are really different in 2012. there have always been well the contributors. certainly some things are different. they are not just citizens united. that is part of it. the speech now decision that most directly created super pacs, the absence of roles between campaigns and supertax

is a big part of it. they've returned us to a world that on the base looks like the pre-watergate world, a campaign is being supported by relatively small numbers of wealthy individuals. the big difference being that the number is probably six or $7 billion in total. this was before the 70's inflation. what is create a situation where the enormous economic quality we see is reinforced by political inequality. that is giving to campaigns, it is about a 1/5 of the 1% giving to campaigns.

you really have the potential for economic and political inequality reenforcing themselves and a self perpetuating structure. you have situations where elected officials are going to be wholly dependent on individual donors. that creates all kinds of potential for the public interest to not be served. i have a little paper out front with that title "beyond sticker shock." it tries to ask the questions you want to be asking after the election. once we really began to get the data after the election, these were for journalists and

academic researchers about money and politics and for people thinking about the changes you do want to make. since 1988 he said candidates do not lose elections. they run out of money cannot get their airplanes off the ground. how was competition affected in

congressional races? were there more competitive candidates as opposed to the massive flow of money? small contributions, were they able to reach the competitiveness. it is not playing the card game of war were you have a higher number and when. -- and win. at some point extra money is not doing any good. last year the average non- incumbent when the congressional race raised $1.5 million. that is people that won an open seat or defeated an incumbent. how many people reach that level and how many candidates have a shot or overwhelmed by super pacs. how this money at that polarization? -- how this money if that polarization fact that is a big part of what is going on in

washington -- this money affect polarization? that is a big of what is going on in washington. how do they tend to create retractable positions? another interesting question is, the automatic instinct is to go to broadcast ads. there are the big cost of politics. it is the only way to reach that person. they're not seeking out political information but they will vote. that is probably less than 5% of the people who will vote and it is probably shrinking. in a base election, getting your vote out becomes more important than getting to that 5%.

a lot of the money going into the organization's, there is a new organization to make it difficult for people to vote. we need to begin to look to that. those are organizations often operate during a different set of legal rules. some people would say exxon mobil is going to put $11 billion into the super pacs, that generally has not happened. corporations have 17% have and most of those are private. it does not matter that much. what have corporations and done at? have they become more polarized themselves? corporations like to play

both sides of the fence. a lot have been at about 60-41 party -- 60/40 one party or another. annette is bipartisan on the face of it and partisan -- aetna is bipartisan on the face of it a partisan in the countries. it is new is that there really are some downsides of putting money into super packs. there used to be considerable downside. you cannot control the message. now you can control the message. the fact is you're not getting the lowest rate, at the fact that the super pacs and not able to buy air time at the same price shows that the romney super pacs were paying six times as much for the same time.

that is an interesting development. and may make people think differently. do small donors still mattered? clearly. they are still a very significant part of at least the obama campaign. it'll be interesting to see how many congressional candidates are able to build a base of small donors. that extends to what is one of the most interesting areas of reform. can we use that to build reform initiatives that enhance the value of small donors and encourage candidates to sneak enhancell donors and and ho this for small donors. a lot of people have moved to thinking it is a really viable way of thinking about campaigns.

they put out a project of reforming the network campaigns. they are really based on that model. small donors are still a viable way of building a campaign. boosting them could be a valuable way of thinking about reform unless the huge outside money overwhelmed that. that is a question in itself. this lead some people to think you really need a constitutional amendments to change its mind before some of these things can work. that is an empirical question. two last questions that really go to the politics. will campaign finance reform ever be a bipartisan thing?

it used to be. there was a great legacy before. not only bipartisan but actually representing fairly conservative republicans as well. this is not the case right now. even the disclose act, a lot of conservatives used to say they were disclosure but nothing else. it now has zero republican co- sponsors. it had to in the previous congress. -- two in the previous congress. maybe after people realize super pacs are not that powerful, there may be something of the political alignments. does the public actually care about this? i've been around this issue for 15 years. others have been for longer. we have been waiting for people to care. all of a sudden the polling

suggests the public really does care. the public does not see money in politics as a distraction from the economy. it is the economy. that connection is strong. on the other hand, the public passion may make it harder. to my mind, those are the range of questions that we need to be looking at after the election ends. now what we will do is we will all come up here and catherine -- katherine will leave this open ended discussion and stop us. -- lead this open-ended discussion and stump us. >> just to start out, i think we're going to get into some of the nitty gritty of this. we're going to get down and

dirty in the finance details. i'm looking forward to that. talk to me a little bit about free speech. nobody mentioned that in their opening remarks. perfectly reasonable. there has been a macro debate in addition to the real hard money about campaign finance. is it the right kind of speech? indulge me with a little. >> that is the right place to start. we have a supreme court that started in the buckley decision back in the 70's and much more recently in citizens united. they have used the first amendment as a way to disqualify a range of government restraint

on both contributions and spending. the first thing to say is we are all americans. we all believe in the first amendment. one of the things i point out when i think about this is all we have a supreme court over the course of the last hundred years which had a whole range of views of what the first amendment required and did not require. it is not a black-and-white question. you had a supreme court which for 35 years after the buckley case said the corporation did not have the same first amendment free-speech rights as individuals. they changed all this doctrine and said that's wrong. but they do. if you added up the number of justices who had voted saying that they did not have those rights appear that those that do, the number who say they don't would be the winner. it is not a clear yes or no.

the supreme court has made this decision between contributions and expenditures for the first amendment and has said if you stand on the street corner, that is free speech. we know that. if you stand there with an amplified microphone, that is still speech even though you pay for it. they have set back line of logic means an individual and now corp. standing on a street corner are using their money for their own speech, radio ads, it television ads, that is all first amendment free speech. the same individual who turns around and takes the same money can be prevented of getting into the campaign. the court says the first amendment speech there is less sir. you're taking your money and you're handing it to someone else to spend.

for them to decide what message they want, therefore it is not really your speech. it is a symbolic sense. the court has said you can limit what individuals give to some other person or entity. what is a super pac? is it your own free speech? is a giving a contribution to this entity were of the people decide what to say in spent? can it therefore be limited? these are all the first amendment questions that we deal with when we get under the 50,000 level of the first amendment. is giving all this money to the super pacs a contribution at?

i think this is a good argument that it is. the reason that this matters is that we have every public, a constitutional form of government or at the end of the day the president and congress have to make decisions on matters. we do not want them being bought off. i think the notion of a democracy is that people get to set policy. not what we would call a special interests. other groups would call them oligarchs. i got a call from a german reporter. he said i want to interview about the role of the oligarchs in the election. i thought, wrong country. there is this concept fundamentally that you want a congress that represents the

will of the people and is not bought off. underlying this is the tension between the first amendment when it comes to spending unlimited money versus corruption and the danger of corruption and people feeling that their government and its policies have been bought by a tiny minority of people who represent a sizable economic interest. >> i yields, i do not want to let libertarians on a person. i care about the first amendment as well. it is one reason why i think other voices are very important.

i think the issue is not just first amendment are no first amendment. it is really an issue of how do we draw the boundaries around an election? that is the real challenge. electoralys had exceptional listen. we have rules. elections are structured process to me sure that they are fair and people can be heard. we except that contribution limits are a way of balancing that out. what is out there that is really a contribution ta? you might as well be considered a constitution. that was the real issue. what is really all about this?

the challenge is really defining that the zone. that is what i think it is about. not just do you value this. >> that is a nice analogy. you look at who is in the zone. we have established a constitution that says citizens vote. non-is since do not vote. we were worried about european governments intervening in our new republic. the inner circle is that individual citizens are the ones who vote. if you have a green card, you can contribute to candidates. but not vote. you look at this and say foreigners cannot have a role in our election. you cannot spend money. he cannot make an independent expenditure. that is all research to

individuals. where are corporations in the middle of all this tax they're not individuals. notll of this that they're individuals. that line of conversation assumes that the government should have a role in inviting who is in the circle. whether it is too has the right to speak or the right to vote. it is to gets to determine who are leaders are. that is what the conversation becomes. >> i wonder if you can talk a little more about, earlier you described this problem for the campaign's of the fragmented narrative. you have many voices and they are independently funded. i thought it sounded kind of re are these twoe models.

this is the only store the public needs to hear because of the way the money is flowing. it is very specific to how the dollars are moving around. in the other scenario we have a bunch of people hollering. you could say the money makes the voices louder. you give as a purely strategic analysis. i like to bring some of your own judgment to its. is this a good thing for the process of democracy for american? >> the romney campaign would say that. if i were to answer the question, it is how well the public is served, be it the issue of corruption.

as a journalist, there are two things to look for. your first is the lack of transparency. there's tons of money coming into these campaign. there could be wealthy individuals we do not even know on the radar. that is a huge problem. it is a huge problem. if they're adding to the chorus, and they're doing it in a way that fundamentally conceal sue is speaking. i want to know who is trying to push the election. push the election. as i understandin